1 APHC010466992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9282 OF 2025 Between: 1. MUNDLAPATI LAKSHMAN, S/O LATE M.RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-50/17, CHANDRASEKHAR COLONY, TIRUCHANUR VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. RAJAGOPAL RAMANATHAN,, S/O R.RAJAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O. D.NO.180, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. MUTHYALA CHANDRASEKHAR,, S/O M. ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O. D.NO. 12-64, THARAKARAMA COLONY, TIRUCHANUR VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Through Station House Officer, Tirupati West Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following Order : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail in Crime No.74 of 2025 of Tirupati West Police Station, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 herein for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 23.12.2024, the defacto complainant drove his car and caused road accident at Kodandaramapuram Village, Chandragiri Mandal. Due to which one Balaji died/ motor cycle rider. On 09.06.2025 the defacto complainant attended in a court case and later he reached at dump yard, nearby Srinivasa Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Thyagaraja Nagar, Tirupati. While he was talking on phone, the Petitioners herein came on a motor cycle and indiscriminately attacked the victim from back side of his head with iron rod and stabbed with a knife with an intention to kill him and that he has sustained severe bleeding injury on his back side of head and due to fear shouted highly and tried to escape from them by running on the road, but once again the Petitioners came from the back side and stabbed with a knife on his left hand shoulder. Hence the above case was registered. 3 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Kanderi Chethan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking them to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their respective families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the Petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioners, 4 if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 3, as seen from the record, is that they had indulged in beating the defacto complainant/ victim with an iron rod and also knife. The victim suffered grievous injuries. The Petitioners were arrested on 02.08.2025. They have been in the judicial custody for the past 46 days. After thorough investigation based on CCTV footage a Charge Sheet was filed. It takes considerable length of time to take up the matter for trial and disposal. Keeping the Petitioners in judicial custody until such indefinite time is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the 5 case. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under Trial Prisoners) v. Union of India1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that under trial prisoners cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners, the alleged role played by the Petitioners and the period of his judicial detention, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) –cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. (ii) The Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; (iii) The Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; 1 (1994) 6 SCC 731 6 (iv) The Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (v) The Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (vi) The Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.09.2025 KK